Rajesh Kumari v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 12 May 2016 · 2016:DHC:8830-DB
Hima Kohli; Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 4253/2016
2016:DHC:8830-DB
administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court directs CISF to pay House Rent Allowance to personnel permitted to live outside official accommodation when no government accommodation is provided, following settled legal precedent upheld by the Supreme Court.

Full Text
Translation output
$ 19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4253/2016 & C.M. 17950/2016
RAJESH KUMARI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Prashant Kumar & Mr. M. Gahiot, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Prashat Varma, CGSC with
• Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Inspector, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
12.05.2016 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.2-CISF to pay her House Rent
Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA), for the period between
18th January, 2014 to 1st March, 2016, to which she is legitimately entitled.
The petitioner herein, who is enrolled as a member of the respondent No.2-CISF, had approached the respondent No.2 for permission to live out of campus with family, which was duly granted.
The petitioner was not provided with the Government Accommodation
(Married).
Learned counsel for petitioner states that the issue raised here is no longer res integra as several other petitions for the same relief have been
W.P.(C) 4253/20 16 2016:DHC:8830-DB P IM filed in this court from time to time, including a batch of matters, lead matter being W.P.(C) 5407/2015 entitled Avijit Das Vs. Union of India
& Ors., that were allowed by a Coordinate Bench vide
ORDER
dated
271h May, 2015. In the said petitions, the respondent No.2-CISF's position was that since the petitioners had been provided with barrack accommodation but were later permitted to leave the said premises, they would not be entitled to claim I-IRA. Turning down the respondent's plea and relying upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(C) 1712/2006 entitled Inspct./Exe Jaspal Singh Mann Vs. UOI &
• Ors. decided on
23rd May, 2008, the Division Bench had issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent-C 1SF that if no official accommodation was made available to the petitioners in the said case, then they would be paid
HRA for the period for which outdo9r residence permission was granted to them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the judgment dated
271h May, 2015, another batch of matters that had raised the same issue, was allowed on

7111 April, 2015, by the Division Bench in

W.P.(C) 3340/2015 entitled Jamila Hassina Vs. Union of India & Ors. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had preferred Special Leave Petition No.15026/2015 (later on converted into Special Leave Petition (Civil) 24592/2015) before the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed at the stage of admission on 241h August, 2015. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief, as has been granted to other similarly placed petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 7th April, 2015, as it has since attained finality. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not interfered in the W.P.(C) 4253/20 16 judgment dated 71h April, 2015 pronounced by the Division Bench in the case of Jamila Hassina (supra) and vide order dated 241h August, 2015, Special Leave Petition (Civil) 24592/2015, has been dismissed, we are of the opinion that the principle of law raised in the said petitions has been conclusively decided and it should apply in rem to all similarly placed personnel in the CISF, including the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents that the petitioner would be paid HRA for the period 18" January, 2014 to 1 March, 2016, for which she was granted outdoor residence permission, if no official accommodation (married) has been made available to him. While making the payment of HRA, the monetary compensation paid to the petitioner in terms of sub- Rule 3 of Rule 61 of the CISF Rules, 2001 shall be duly adjusted. The said payment shall be released to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. if the said amount is not released to the petitioner within the stipulated timeline, then the same shall be paid by the respondents along with simple interest @8% per annum after the expiry of four months, till the date of payment. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application. .• HIMA KOHL!, J SfURE MAY 12, 2016 r

W.P.(C) 4253/2016 ô , Vi cttd r.4 ¶ rUi